DescentBB

.....but:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/tenness ... her-women/


trying to legislate morality is wrong at so many levels, but with this sort of hypocrite involved, it becomes laughable.

Don't they all do that? What's good for me is not good for you?

Must be nice to live in a world where your own party never does anything worthy of criticizing.

(save the token examples)

Spidey wrote:Must be nice to live in a world where your own party never does anything worthy of criticizing.

(save the token examples)

as an registered Independent, I don't have a party(left the party when they failed to support Obama in ways that I felt were important). Does it seem that over the past decade, one major party has been guilty of this sort of two faced hypocrisy. One party seems engaged, daily, in restricting the healthcare choices of women. One party seems dedicated to perpetuating a society in which so long as you are wealthy, you get to make your own rules and the hell with others. I call out Dems when I see this level reached, but frankly, it just doesn't happen at the same level, at least among the elected office holders. Note, on this very board, how often the comebacks deal with Al Sharpton(not elected to anything) or some equally non-party liberal think-tank or educational institution. If the Dems were close to this two faced, hypocritical or downright scummy, you'd hear about it from me(and I suspect from others who would GLADLY beat me to the punch).

Spidey wrote:Must be nice to live in a world where your own party never does anything worthy of criticizing.

(save the token examples)

I DID say: "Don't they ALL do that"? I wasn't excluding the Dems. Many of them are no angels either. Politicians are always hypocrites. I think that's a requirement for office sometimes.

However, when a certain conservative party runs on a platform of: "Everyone should follow our ideals of socially and religiously acceptable mores and behavior", they should damn well be sure to practice what they preach. By the way, that includes ministers and preachers too.

callmeslick wrote:.....but:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/tenness ... her-women/


trying to legislate morality is wrong at so many levels, but with this sort of hypocrite involved, it becomes laughable.

The irony is noted....

Although, given your assertion that trying to legislate morality is wrong, I don't understand why you push for gun control laws... after all, restricting a person's ability to own and use guns as they please sure seems like trying to legislate your morality...

public safety is NOT morality.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Must be nice to live in a world where your own party never does anything worthy of criticizing.

(save the token examples)

as an registered Independent, I don't have a party(left the party when they failed to support Obama in ways that I felt were important). Does it seem that over the past decade, one major party has been guilty of this sort of two faced hypocrisy. One party seems engaged, daily, in restricting the healthcare choices of women. One party seems dedicated to perpetuating a society in which so long as you are wealthy, you get to make your own rules and the hell with others. I call out Dems when I see this level reached, but frankly, it just doesn't happen at the same level, at least among the elected office holders. Note, on this very board, how often the comebacks deal with Al Sharpton(not elected to anything) or some equally non-party liberal think-tank or educational institution. If the Dems were close to this two faced, hypocritical or downright scummy, you'd hear about it from me(and I suspect from others who would GLADLY beat me to the punch).

Yeah, you were right out front when Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill (healthcare)before we can know whats in it". And where are you exclaiming about the First Lady running around telling all the blacks how lousy they have it while she enjoys more luxury's than any queen ever did. Or how the Clinton Foundation is one giant cess pool run for the betterment of the Clintons? Yeah, you're a independent alright.

callmeslick wrote:public safety is NOT morality.

But we can legislate ethics, which are based on morality.

woodchip wrote:Yeah, you were right out front when Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill (healthcare)before we can know whats in it".

no, and I wasn't the one harping on an out of context quote for 6 years. I left the Dems, by the way, when they failed in PA to support Specter(who I always voted for, gave money to and became friends with when he was a Republican), who was key to passing the ACA.

And where are you exclaiming about the First Lady running around telling all the blacks how lousy they have it while she enjoys more luxury's than any queen ever did.

blind jealousy here. In fact the only persons making an issue of such statements(which, once again, you twist far past anything ever said, and overstate the perks of first lady)are bigots and haters. Welcome to that club, and you can keep that membership to yourownself.

Or how the Clinton Foundation is one giant cess pool run for the betterment of the Clintons? Yeah, you're a independent alright.

the Clinton foundation has ZERO party involvement, to my knowledge, and frankly has done great things both in this nation and worldwide. Once again a swing and miss as you attempt to make feeble guesses at the political leanings and support of another person.

We'll see slick. I watched the interview with Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom on Boomberg Studio 1.0 yesterday. He claims that he and/or Julian Assange will probably be Hillary's worst nightmare in 2016. He didn't elaborate, but I'm guessing there is some really nasty dirt they have in their hot little hands about her or her foundation and it's going to be leaked at an inopportune time.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election ... h23pp.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/20 ... 1-0-05-14-

Kim Dotcom is a complete charlatran, and WikiLeaks has gotten a few black eyes of late for really dubious 'leaks' that turned out to be bogus. That said, if they kill off the Hillary campaign, I'm all for it. Something that caught my eye last week was polling data that showed that only 25% of the voting public finds Ms.Clinton to be 'trustworthy'. That should put chills up the spine of the Dems behind her. Sure, she can still likely beat anyone in the Clown Car, but where does that leave America. We have to get past these narrow election victories, and get a larger share of the electorate on board. These 50.5-49.5% margins get us nowhere. Jim Webb in 2016.

No argument here. It'd still be interesting to have a WikiLeaks bomb dropped on Clinton just as Webb comes into the picture, especially if Clinton's trustworthiness rating is already in the toilet. What's he waiting for anyway? Still haven't heard much of a peep.

Memorial Day is right around the corner............

further on the Hillary polling numbers. In 40 years of following politics seriously(or a bit more, actually), I've never seen a candidate win with such low numbers, or even come close. The fact that she still leads all the Clowns in the Car speaks more to the complete public aversion to the current GOP campaign than it does to Hillary or her campaign.

So it's Memorial Day for Webb then?

Speaking of Clown Car rejects...... [Spoiler, Romney lost]

[youtube]TBdz9j2eFbY[/youtube]

I expect the rollout between Memorial Day and July Fourth, TC. I will be shocked and a bit sad if he doesn't jump in, and pretty soon. The feedback I KNOW he's been getting from Iowa to NH even in South Carolina and of course in VA should convince him. No one gave him a shot when he ran for Senate in Virginia, until about 10 weeks into the serious campaign. Then, he was close enough to win with just one slip by his opponent, which is exactly what happened.

Jim Webb!

Though if I was a betting man I would put my money on Jeb. Pretty sure he's going to walk away with it, easily.

vision wrote:Jim Webb!

Though if I was a betting man I would put my money on Jeb. Pretty sure he's going to walk away with it, easily.

no way. After the start of his campaign, he won't last until January. He's pissed off the Iowa caucus, blundered into getting shamed by
a college student, has the wrong last name and has made another 3 or 4 minor missteps. No way Jeb takes the nomination, let alone
the Presidency.

callmeslick wrote:Memorial Day is right around the corner............

further on the Hillary polling numbers. In 40 years of following politics seriously(or a bit more, actually), I've never seen a candidate win with such low numbers, or even come close. The fact that she still leads all the Clowns in the Car speaks more to the complete public aversion to the current GOP campaign than it does to Hillary or her campaign.

Only polls I see are Clinton leading the clown car of Dems. Sad statement for the Democratic party.

callmeslick wrote:
no, and I wasn't the one harping on an out of context quote for 6 years. I left the Dems, by the way, when they failed in PA to support Specter(who I always voted for, gave money to and became friends with when he was a Republican), who was key to passing the ACA.

Then just what was the context and cite it.

callmeslick wrote:
blind jealousy here. In fact the only persons making an issue of such statements(which, once again, you twist far past anything ever said, and overstate the perks of first lady)are bigots and haters. Welcome to that club, and you can keep that membership to yourownself.

Blind jealousy ? Why would I be jealous of a racist woman who obviously has been practicing 20 years of Rev. Wright sermons. Only bigot is the one being defensive here.

callmeslick wrote:the Clinton foundation has ZERO party involvement, to my knowledge, and frankly has done great things both in this nation and worldwide. Once again a swing and miss as you attempt to make feeble guesses at the political leanings and support of another person.

Zero involement? Look up the Russian Banker and his contributions so he could buy a certain uranium mine...after of course Hillary approved it while secretary of state. As for doing great thing, how can they do great things when"

"The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid."

They are so bad that:

"The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month."

Too bad slick you claim to be a independent but are in reality the chief rah rah boy for the Dems and especially the Clinton's.

callmeslick wrote:public safety is NOT morality.

Call things what you like but I think the comparison is strikingly appropriate. In both cases we're concerned with saving the lives of people. In both cases, we're asking the law to intervene, saying what some can and cannot do to others. At the end of the day, the only difference is that majority opinion wants to legislate (or keep legislature concerning) the moral code that it's not okay to kill adults, but majority opinion doesn't want to legislate a moral code that it's not okay to kill babies who have not reached a certain level of development.

Here's the bottom line (and why "it's wrong to legislate morality" is a completely idiotic statement): A moral code is a set a rules stating how we should conduct ourselves (generally more of an internal thing, or at least something that isn't explicitly enforced). The law is a set of rules stating how we should conduct ourselves (enforced by the government). The only law that excludes morality is no law at all.

Now, if you want to say that it's wrong to legislate your moral code because [insert quality/clause] is wrong, instead legislate my moral code because it's so much better - then we can talk. Alternatively, if you're advocating anarchy (which, in a sense is a moral code of its own) then we can talk about how we shouldn't have any laws. (Again, the absence thereof still constitutes an expression of morality.)

People are woefully misguided these days in their inability to recognize that their own opinions about how to live with each other constitute a moral code and a set of beliefs.

snoopy wrote:...majority opinion doesn't want to legislate a moral code that it's not okay to kill babies who have not reached a certain level of development.

Let's not forget that "certain level of development" is a key factor. The more we know about the world the more we realize birth and death follow a gradient, and we collectively have settled on the viability of a fetus (not a baby) as the measure. Like I've said many times, as soon as we can make an embryo viable we will no longer have a problem with abortion (we'll have a different problem, with a different solution). Don't like abortion? Support science.

vision wrote:and we collectively have settled on the viability of a fetus (not a baby) as the measure.

Uhuh. Tell that to the people who get charged with double homicide when they kill a pregnant woman. Also, tell that to all of the people who disagree with your criteria.

But, the good news is that the those shot by guns are merely homo sapians (not people) so we don't have a problem there, either.

'my moral code' has nothing to do with maintaining a position of pro-choice. In fact, to be pro-choice is NOT to be pro-abortion, it is merely allowing my fellow citizens the freedom to make that moral call for themselves, as their decision is none of my fecking business.

snoopy wrote:Uhuh. Tell that to the people who get charged with double homicide when they kill a pregnant woman.

Those vary by state where people find these types of laws appropriate. Other states do not, nor is it a crime at the federal level, which brings me to...

snoopy wrote:Also, tell that to all of the people who disagree with your criteria.

Irrelevant. My point still stands. At the federal level we are collectively pro-choice. Maybe that will change in the future, but that seems more than doubtful.

snoopy wrote:But, the good news is that the those shot by guns are merely homo sapians (not people) so we don't have a problem there, either.

As someone who is vehemently anti-gun I'm not sure what your point is, but please, carry on.

callmeslick wrote:'my moral code' has nothing to do with maintaining a position of pro-choice. In fact, to be pro-choice is NOT to be pro-abortion, it is merely allowing my fellow citizens the freedom to make that moral call for themselves, as their decision is none of my fecking business.

So you are saying if a persons moral compass says it is ok to have sex with children, you are ok with that?

no, as the child is a viable living being who cannot form a rational decision to participate. See the word 'viable' before trying to link this to abortion law.

Then you have to be more careful about using blanket terms like "moral choices"

callmeslick wrote:'my moral code' has nothing to do with maintaining a position of pro-choice. In fact, to be pro-choice is NOT to be pro-abortion, it is merely allowing my fellow citizens the freedom to make that moral call for themselves, as their decision is none of my fecking business.

In that case, I'm pro-choice, too. Pro deranged lunatics having the moral freedom to choose to shoot innocent homo sapians on the street because their decision is none of my business as long as I'm not the one they're choosing to shoot.

The bottom line on your stance isn't that it isn't your business... it's that those fetuses aren't people whose lives are worth the government's protection... as evidenced by your willingness to legislate away people's freedom to own and use guns in the interest of the government protecting other people (which can equally be said to be none of your business). You say public safety isn't morality: so I must conclude that you believe that fetuses are not a part of the public.

vision wrote:Irrelevant. My point still stands. At the federal level we are collectively pro-choice. Maybe that will change in the future, but that seems more than doubtful.

It isn't irrelevant. The nation's pretty evenly split on the issue - so don't give me some story about how there's collective agreement, because there isn't. In fact, the double homicide part is evidence that even within the law there isn't collective agreement. I agree with you that there's a law in place that's basically in line with your position - and I'm also expressing my consternation over that fact... but I'm not alone. Back to my original point: we all have opinions about when a human life (and freedom) is something worth protecting over other people's freedom - and those opinions constitute a moral code.

vision wrote:As someone who is vehemently anti-gun I'm not sure what your point is, but please, carry on.

My point: using scientific terms on people doesn't change their nature... it just makes you feel better about dehumanizing them.

Finally on the whole "viable" stuff: I call BS on the concept. Using vision's "spectrum" - we're all on the spectrum of interdependence. (okay, maybe not Bear Grylls, but the rest of us are.) It's a definition of convenience. I know it's a handy line to draw, but it's also arbitrary (and pretty much unknown on a case-by-case basis) when you get into details like how much effort you put into making the conditions outside of the uterus favorable.

Further calling BS on the whole "viable" stuff:

Merriam-Webster wrote:Full Definition of VIABLE

1: capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>
2: capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs>
3a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives>
b : capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state>
c (1) : having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2) : financially sustainable <a viable enterprise>

Why do we have a need for the demarcation between definitions 1 and 2? 1 is essentially a subset of 2... so how do we decide which definition pertains to what? Why selectively add the extra criteria... if not to assuage our conscious?

nah, no point in going through this merry-go-round again.

Nice cop out.

sorry, but I can perfectly well read the hundreds of threads and posts dealing with everyone's opinion about abortion. The OP was about legislating one way, and living ones life of privilege another.

snoopy wrote:The nation's pretty evenly split on the issue - so don't give me some story about how there's collective agreement, because there isn't.

Then change the law, tough guy. You and your group should get their ★■◆● together and do something besides complain. Also, these pro-life / pro-choice responses from polls you read follow the trend in polarization by party line, and often not reflect actual views. It's called peer pressure. Some people clearly identify as pro-life but get abortions anyway, hence this thread.

snoopy wrote:My point: using scientific terms on people doesn't change their nature... it just makes you feel better about dehumanizing them.

But at the same time you are proving my position. To be human is more than being homo sapien and more than being an embryo or fetus. Human beings have personalities you engage with. That's why we allow euthanasia when people suffer permanent brain injury. The "person" is gone and all that's left is the homo sapien. Non-viable fetuses have no personality other than what a mother projects onto it. The fetus is just an extension of the mother at this point and because of that I support her right to end a pregnancy early. It's 100% her choice, not a man's, not even the father's.

snoopy wrote:Finally on the whole "viable" stuff: I call BS on the concept.

Calling BS on something doesn't change reality. People call BS on climate change too. Learn more science. Like I've said many times, I don't think we should kill anyone. But if you are going to do it, killing a fetus before it develops recognizable human conscious is probably the best time.

callmeslick wrote:sorry, but I can perfectly well read the hundreds of threads and posts dealing with everyone's opinion about abortion. The OP was about legislating one way, and living ones life of privilege another.

As I read it, the OP was about it being wrong to legislate morality. When I call you out on how misled that statement is, you cop out. I'll let go of the a fetus is/isn't a person argument.... but I want you to admit that the argument is over the individual merits of different moral codes... not on whether we should legislate moral codes or not. What bothers me about the sentiment is that modern US popular opinion seems to think that it's point of view is somehow free of philosophical/moral content simply because it isn't associated with any organized religion.

vision wrote:Then change the law, tough guy. You and your group should get their **** together and do something besides complain. Also, these pro-life / pro-choice responses from polls you read follow the trend in polarization by party line, and often not reflect actual views. It's called peer pressure. Some people clearly identify as pro-life but get abortions anyway, hence this thread.

Might does not make right. Majority also does not make right. I'm doing my part with respect to this issue, and political lobbying isn't my thing. I actually have little expectation for things to change, just like you. (I still don't have to think it's right and I still don't have to like it, and I can still express that opinion.)

vision wrote:But at the same time you are proving my position. To be human is more than being homo sapien and more than being an embryo or fetus. Human beings have personalities you engage with. That's why we allow euthanasia when people suffer permanent brain injury. The "person" is gone and all that's left is the homo sapien. Non-viable fetuses have no personality other than what a mother projects onto it. The fetus is just an extension of the mother at this point and because of that I support her right to end a pregnancy early. It's 100% her choice, not a man's, not even the father's.

...We prove each other's. "Viability" is a convenient way to slap a scientific facade on what is a philosophical issue at its core. [Science cannot define what constitutes a person - you can define it in scientific terms, or based on measurable criteria, but you can't use science to defend your criteria - you can only use science to measure your criteria. In other words, "personhood" isn't a measurable quality.]

vision wrote:Calling BS on something doesn't change reality. People call BS on climate change too. Learn more science.

I'm calling BS on using a science facade push a philosophical/political agenda. I'm one of those that call BS on the climate change issue too - not because I have any doubt that we humans are the most significant evolutionary force in the history of the world, but because I don't necessarily agree with the political agenda that everyone attaches to the climate change argument's coat tails. The bottom line: "viability" is a human construction to facilitate our understanding of things. Our current definition of viability only exists because some people decided it should be as it is.

snoopy wrote:philosophical/political agenda...

Many things formerly in the domain of philosophy are now the property of science. Yes we can have debates about what it means to be human, but when solving a problem like abortion (or any problem) it's best to use some objective criteria. This is where science comes to the rescue. Viability is real and testable, not philosophical. And like I said before, I whole-heartedly believe the problem of abortion will be solved by science when pregnant mothers can give up their baby for adoption at the moment of conception, eliminating the need for such deaths. Back me up on this if you want to see a better world.

vision wrote:

snoopy wrote:philosophical/political agenda...

Many things formerly in the domain of philosophy are now the property of science. Yes we can have debates about what it means to be human, but when solving a problem like abortion (or any problem) it's best to use some objective criteria. This is where science comes to the rescue. Viability is real and testable, not philosophical. And like I said before, I whole-heartedly believe the problem of abortion will be solved by science when pregnant mothers can give up their baby for adoption at the moment of conception, eliminating the need for such deaths. Back me up on this if you want to see a better world.

Sure, "capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>" is [mostly - tell me what's objective and measurable about "normally"] objectively measurable.

"capable of growing or developing" is also objectively measurable.

How do you choose between the definitions using only science?

snoopy wrote:How do you choose between the definitions using only science?

How do you not know the answer to this? You practically said it yourself: "tell me what's objective and measurable about 'normally'." Normal is based on a normal distribution. Like I mentioned earlier, birth and death are gradients. Different factors in fetal development add or subtract to the probability of viability. It's as objective as we can be given the current body of scientific knowledge, and it improves every day. Likewise, the more we make high-end medical care available, the greater our window of viability – which means fewer deaths to the unborn. If you want to end abortion, support science and advanced medical care for all.

That’s all well and good, but it still doesn’t give viability any place in ethics.

There is only one parameter that determines something’s right to live. (hint: life doesn’t get its right to exist from being human, a person, viability…etc)

And there is only one parameter that determines the right to take life.

All of the rest is mental masturbation. If you want to kill your unborn children, by all means go ahead and do it, just stop trying to get me to buy all of the BS justifications.

Also calling abortion a medical procedure is an insult to medicine, medicine is something that heals or cures, pregnancy is not a disease or illness. Abortion is a selective surgery/procedure.

Anyway….back to masturbating…